AI video model comparison
Kling 3.0 vs Wan 3.0
Kling 3.0 is 25% cheaper (price per second at 720p: Kling 3.0 $0.19/s vs Wan 3.0 $0.25/s). Kling 3.0 has faster renders and a higher top resolution. Wan 3.0 has the cheapest clip, longer clips and more reference images.
| Price | ||
|---|---|---|
| Cheapest second | $0.19/s | $0.13/s (best) |
| Per second at 480p | Not offered | $0.13/s |
| Per second at 720p | $0.19/s (best) | $0.25/s |
| Per second at 1080p | $0.25/s (best) | $0.51/s |
| Per second at 4K | $0.63/s | Not offered |
| Cheapest clip | $0.58 | $0.26 (best) |
| A 5-second clip at 720p | $0.95 (best) | $1.28 |
| A 10-second clip at 1080p | $2.54 (best) | $5.10 |
| Speed and length | ||
| Render time | ~1–3 min (best) | ~2–7 min |
| Longest clip | 15s | 30s (best) |
| Clip lengths | 3–15s | 2–30s |
| Output | ||
| Top resolution | 4k (best) | 1080P |
| Frames | 16:9 · 9:16 · 1:1 | 16:9 · 4:3 · 1:1 · 3:4 · 9:16 |
| Sound | Native | Native |
| Inputs | ||
| Takes | 1Text · 1 image | 10Text · 10 images · 1 video · audio |
| Reference images | Up to 1 | Up to 10 (best) |
| Needs | A prompt | A prompt |
| What it does | ||
| Can do | Text → videoImage → video | Text → videoImage → videoFirst + last frameMulti-referenceVideo → videoAudio-driven |
| Good for | Image-to-video · Motion control · UGC content | Value renders · Open ecosystem · Experimentation |
| Settings you control | Frame · Audio · Length · Multi-shot · Resolution | Frame · Audio · Length · Document · Attachment role · Per-attachment roles · Web page · Expand prompt · Resolution · Seed · Watermark |
Same prompt, side by side
UGC selfie · the same prompt on every model
“A woman in her late twenties talks straight into her phone camera in a bright kitchen, handheld selfie framing, natural window light, she smiles and gestures mid-sentence, casual creator energy, no on-screen captions”
Product shot · the same prompt on every model
“Cinematic product shot: a matte black wireless earbud case turns slowly on a dark reflective surface, a single warm rim light sweeps across it, macro lens, shallow depth of field, slow push-in, plain unbranded case”
Which should you choose?
Choose Kling 3.0 if you want
- a lower price per second at 720p
- faster renders
- a higher top resolution
- image-to-video
- motion control
Choose Wan 3.0 if you want
- the cheapest clip
- longer clips
- more reference images
- first + last frame, which the other cannot do
- multi-reference, which the other cannot do
- video → video, which the other cannot do
- audio-driven, which the other cannot do
- value renders
- open ecosystem
More from each model
Kling 3.0
Compare with others
Kling 3.0 vs …
Kling 3.0 vs Hailuo 2.3
Kling 3.0 vs Runway Gen-4.5
Kling 3.0 vs Seedance 2.0
Kling 3.0 vs Veo 3.1
Kling 3.0 vs Seedance 2.5
Kling 3.0 vs Wan 3.0 Prime
Wan 3.0 vs MiniMax H3
Wan 3.0 vs Seedance 2.0 Fast
Wan 3.0 vs Kling O1How we compare
- Prices come from the live catalog at the pay-as-you-go rate. The quote before you generate is binding. Plans and packs
- Render times are the catalog’s own estimate for one render.
- Every clip and image on this page was rendered on OpenClips.
Questions
Kling 3.0 vs Wan 3.0: questions
Kling 3.0 costs the least here (price per second at 720p). Kling 3.0: $0.19/s. Wan 3.0: $0.25/s. Prices are at the pay-as-you-go rate. The quote before you generate is binding.
Kling 3.0 is the fastest here. Kling 3.0 takes ~1–3 min. Wan 3.0 takes ~2–7 min.
Kling 3.0 and Wan 3.0 take a still as the first frame or a reference.
Kling 3.0 makes up to 15 seconds. Wan 3.0 makes up to 30 seconds.
Kling 3.0 and Wan 3.0 render native audio with the picture.